danivon wrote:Dr Fate is convinced (as he has been for a while, despite the evidence) that the economy is faltering. Obama is of course hoping that it doesn't. The real question is what voters think has been the case by November

Well, when you start seeing news articles like this one from April 4, 2012 that say there is going to me a surge in home foreclosures in the next month or two, it is hard to think the economy is going to continue heading up.

That would be bad. Of course, a lot of foreclosures are down to bad practice by banks.

Ray Jay you are correct. My eyesight is going, I mistook the '.' for a ','

As for weak candidates, it seems so at this time and may seem so in a few months. But you must remember that this is immediatley following a fairly nasty (although nothing as compared to what is coming in the general) primary campaign. As the Republicans start lining up and begin to make nice, the polls, and perceptions, may change.

But you are absolutely correct in that Romney does not seem to be a very good candidate, no matter how you may feel about how he would preside.

Danivon, very good I like sarcasm. Because I know you can't really be serious about the narcissistic, egomaniacal, socialist. Must have thought he was better than Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and all the rest of our presidents. WHy else would he need more than two terms? Try to introduce unconstitutional laws, OK pack the Supreme Court. There is just so much wrong with FDR, would take a book. ANd there are plenty of those.

Romney was probably the best of a bad bunch (well actually I liked Huntsman, but he was never realistic). He's undoubtedly got a better chance than either Santorum, Gingrich or Paul, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. I think he'll lose, and he may drag a few Republican candidates down with him.

I actually think he will win and surprisingly by a decent margin but it so far in the future (in political terms) that guessing now is close to mindless although fun.

Just heard Dick Morris on a few shows (the Benedict Arnold, worked for Clinton and now is a conservative!! opposite of the other Mrs Arnold-Arianna Huffington). Anyway, he was spouting statistics about how independents always (except for Bush 2004) always go for the challenger. Another statistic he quoted was that the incumbent will always end up with less than what the poll says he will. His point being that if 44% say they will vote for Obama then he can really only expect 44% max most likely 1 or 2% less. Meaning Romney 56% or better. Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to but it is interesting and way too early to be of any significance. I am just waiting for a 'Wag the Dog' moment. Get into a war just in time for the election.

I would like to take Gingrich brain, Paul domestic policy, Romney business experience, and find something to like about Santorum and mix them all up together.

danivon wrote:That would be bad. Of course, a lot of foreclosures are down to bad practice by banks.

The article sort of addresses this. It claims the next round of foreclosures are not from the bad practices. This is from the article

One big difference to the early years of the housing crisis, which was dominated by Americans saddled with the most toxic subprime products -- with high interest rates where banks asked for no money down or no proof of income -- is that today it's mostly Americans with ordinary mortgages whose ability to meet payment have been hit by the hard economic times.

"The subprime stuff is long gone," said Michael Redman, founder of 4closurefraud.org. "Now the folks being affected are hardworking, everyday Americans struggling because of the economy."

The article claims there is something like 9.5 million homes in threat of foreclosure right now. The banks stopped all foreclosure procedures when the robosigning scandal broke. However, now that there has been a settlement with the various states in that issue, the banks have started again. Duetsche Bank has increased its foreclosure proceedings by 47% over 2011, Wells Fargo is up 67% and Bank of America is up abount 7x what it was this time in 2011. It is expected to caused a 3.7% decline in home values nationwide.

Anyway, he was spouting statistics about how independents always (except for Bush 2004) always go for the challenger. Another statistic he quoted was that the incumbent will always end up with less than what the poll says he will. His point being that if 44% say they will vote for Obama then he can really only expect 44% max most likely 1 or 2% less. Meaning Romney 56% or better.

And yet incumbents usually win.

rushtomyleft wrote:Danivon, very good I like sarcasm. Because I know you can't really be serious about the narcissistic, egomaniacal, socialist.

Oh, no, I was serious. We can't all be conservatives, ya know?

Yes, seems so but recently not so much. Carter and Bush(1) recent exceptions. Should probably count LBJ because he knew he couldn't win so didn't run. Probably wouldn't even get the nomination. Don't think you can count Ford. Let's hope we can add to the NO list.
So lets see since LBJ
LBJ-NO
Nixon-YES
Ford-N/A
Carter-NO
Reagan-YES
Bush(1)-NO
Clinton-YES
Bush(2)-YES
Only 4 to 3.

danivon, oh I know you were serious. Was just joking. I am definately right-wing. Always found it better than wrong-wing.

rushtomyleft wrote:danivon, oh I know you were serious. Was just joking. I am definately right-wing. Always found it better than wrong-wing.

Oh boy, we have a comedian in our midst.

I was watching some George Carlin today. He is funny.

arch

Quinnipiac just released a poll in which Democrats were oversampled by 6pts which is closer to the historical average. It had 49% say Obama does not deserve to be reelected and 56% disapprove of the way he is handling the economy. For the question, who would do a better job on the economy Romney wins 47/43 while the question of who would do a better job at creating jobs goes to Romney 45/42

.

Over sampled 6%? The weighted samples of the poll are Republican 25% Democrat 31% Independent 38% and Other 6%
The polls also had a 2560 sample size, which is pretty stable representation... The 6% Other is kind of unusual, but the Dem number if anything is low...
The polls that were badly wrong in the Penn primaries had sample sizes of 400 by the way.
As well,, my premise is that 95% of the voters or more are pretty set and won't budge. And that the 5% who aren't only matter in the battleground states. The primaries were a matter of a fluid voting group searching for someone they could love. (And eventually settling for Mitt ...)
By the way, though the Q poll had negatives about Obama as you note, it said about Mitt:\
More voters have an unfavorable opinion of the president, 49 percent, compared to the 45 percent who view him favorably. Romney is viewed favorably by 33 percent and unfavorably by 38 percent.
Being a politician isn't a very popular job right now... Far better to be Michelle Obama . (And shè will be a very effective campaigner...)

The other thing you didn't note about the poll is that it confirms what i said about the demographic strengths of Obama.
The gender gap remains, with Obama leading among women 49 - 39 percent and trailing slightly among men 46 - 43 percent," said Brown. "The racial gap is even wider: Romney leads 52 - 36 percent among whites, while the president is ahead among blacks 94 - 3 percent and among Hispanics 64 - 24 percent. (Rubio refused to accept VP nod, today. Presuming he was being considered.)

Changing the deep set opinions in these demographics will be tough. There's a long history and an entrenched attitude that the republican brand ain't their friend.
With white men, where Mitt leads ... the economy will be key. More so the direction then anything. The foreclosure issue is interesting. But it doesn't say if these are foreclosures that have been coming for some time, and were only forestalled and put off as the banks got their act together on the paper work. I don't know if that makes a huge difference if thats the case.
Those losing their houses have been long termed unemployed now.... They probably havn't contributed to economic activity for a while. As they lose their houses though, won't it also be a case of "who's going to help me now? What are we doing for all these newly homeless?" There is a compassionate streak in the US, and the stripping of the social safety nets proposed by the right, might not seem attractive as those in genuine need increase...

Anyway, I admit that there is a long time to go. I also look forward to be able to smugly point to my predictions in November to prove my incredible early insight.

Carter was beaten by Reagan, who was an excellent candidate and a strong campaigner. Bush Sr wasbeaten by Clinton, who was an exceptionally strong campaigner. Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr all faced really weak opponents and won handily. Romney is a terrible candidate so he doesn't really fit the mould of a successful challenger

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Dr Fate is convinced (as he has been for a while, despite the evidence) that the economy is faltering. Obama is of course hoping that it doesn't. The real question is what voters think has been the case by November

Well, when you start seeing news articles like this one from April 4, 2012 that say there is going to me a surge in home foreclosures in the next month or two, it is hard to think the economy is going to continue heading up.

It's okay.

Danivon either is not paying attention or doesn't care.

Job claims have been up for the last two weeks. That's not good and it was not expected.

Housing sales were down last month.

Housing starts are down.

I don't think it's going to tank. I think it's not improving, or at least not noticeably so. I don't think most Americans will be running to the voting booth on account of the booming economy. If anything, we're in a period of stagnation.